Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.

Do not post users' personal information.

Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.

Vote based on quality, not opinion.

Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.

Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting.

Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.

Submissions must be an original source.

An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.

Articles must be written in English

An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.

Spam is bad!

If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.

The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

This ignores the causes of the war though. Lincoln's goal wasn't freeing slaves, but the south's goal was to maintain their right to own slaves, at least in part. The war wasn't fought for slavery... but slavery was a major reason for the South's secession.

This would indicate he did do it to free the slaves, but as a cause in and of itself. Slavery was the dividing issue in states rights and the movement to break away, so it really was the central issue.

Clearly he thinks states have a right to completely ignore - even rebel against - the federation. Why bother having a federation at all, then? He should give up on Congress, go back to his homestate, and try to convince it to secede.

I take issue with that. Ron Paul necessarily accepts the 14th amendment, as it's in the constitution. I guarantee you, if they amended the constitution tomorrow to outlaw religion in its entirety, Ron Paul would likely be on board with it as it's in the constitution. I'm sure he'd break the law, but still.

That being said, I disagree with Paul in nearly every way. I do admire his dedication though.

Ron Paul necessarily accepts the 14th amendment, as it's in the constitution.

It depends what you mean by accepts. He does not believe in the incorporation that the 14th amendment gives via the due process clause. He's introduced legislation that would give states the power to infringe on the right to privacy (specifically with reference to abortion and sodomy laws). It would also have let states establish a religion and not allowed the Supreme Court to accept any case on gay marriage with respect to the equal protection clause. He's been very vocal about being against the Supreme Court applying the bill of rights to the states. This is because, above all, he is an anti-federalist, even in cases where doing so would result in a loss of individual liberty.

Actually, I agree with you. The problem with the entire situation is interpretation of the 14th amendment. A more apt phrasing of your statement would be "Ron Paul doesn't agree with the popular interpretation of the 14th amendment," not that he doesn't accept it.

But, semantics aside, my point was that Ron Paul does not believe in incorporation in general, meaning he does not believe that the states should be held to the bill of rights, that they should have the ultimate power, even if that means that the states would be allowed to infringe on certain individual rights.

The reason I bring this up is many are a bit confused on Ron Paul's stance. He is an anti-federalist, meaning he will do everything he can to remove power from the federal government and giving it to the states, even if it results in a loss of individual liberty for some.

Completely agreed. Ron Paul is opposed to incorporation, but I wouldn't say that he's opposed to the bill of rights. He's one of the biggest congressional supporters of Free Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, Protection against Search and Seizure, and pretty much all of the first 10 amendments.

Uhm, what? Federalists generally believe in resting power in the federal government. Anti-federalists believe that the states should have all the power. Ron Paul believes in states rights over all else.

Words have meanings, sir. Federalist (capital F) and Anti-Federalist (capital A and F) are ideological positions defined by the Federalist Papers and their counterpart, the Anti-Federalist response. Federalists believe that the governing authority of the Federal Government supersedes that of the States in many issues, Anti-Federalists take the opposite view. Now, if you want to make the case that Paul is a federalist (note the lower-case f), in the sense that he (as you said) believes in a "federal union" of states, then so be it. But that's true of the vast majority of the political spectrum in this country, to one degree or another. Just don't confuse the ideology of Federalism with mere acknowledgment of the federal union.

You clearly don't understand the concept of federalists in the term it was used in post rev war America... If you think that generalization makes Ron Paul a federalist you should read some history on the anti federalists and federalists

They both accepted a federal government R-tard, it was what they thought the feds had a right to do..

I don't think that, but a lot of people think that you can't force states to adhere to the same rules as the feds. Anyone who describes the confederation of the United States as "the centralized state" rather than the federation clearly has some hangups about the issue.

Their secession was a direct rejection of the laws of the federation. Not prohibited by the Constitution, but if you're seceding from the union you clearly don't think the Constitution carries any weight anyway, so why's that an important fact? They agreed, through consent and law, to be members of the federation. You can't be fair-weather friends, just accepting the benefits and fleeing at the first sign of downsides. You reform republics, you don't reject them.

Their secession was a direct rejection of the laws of the federation. Not prohibited by the Constitution, but if you're seceding from the union you clearly don't think the Constitution carries any weight anyway, so why's that an important fact? They agreed, through consent and law, to be members of the federation. You can't be fair-weather friends, just accepting the benefits and fleeing at the first sign of downsides. You reform republics, you don't reject them.

So you're saying the south was shackled by the chains of repression... of a liberal democratic republic? You don't need to rise up violently against such governments, the system of nonviolent alteration is explicit and intentional. It is subservient to the general populace, something a crown anything is not. That's why they're different categories of government.

Having read through a lot of this thread, most people(including Congressman Paul) seem to forget that

1) The south seceeded before Lincoln could propose any kind of legislation.

2)To get a "Slave Buyback" through congress would have required the Southern congressmen to be on board, the same congressmen who would rather secede than to try and work things out peaceably(Again remember that the south seized federal property and when Fort Sumter refused to surrender, it was Southerners who fired the first shots.).

3) The Free Market has NEVER brought an end to slavery throughout all of history. The only times Slavery as an institution was ended was through the efforts of a central government.

4) Slavery has led to the destruction of every civilization that didn't have a government strong or wise enough to abolish it.

5) The civil war was not (initially) about slavery, it was about reuniting the nation. Lincoln was not elected on the platform of freeing the slaves. It wasn't until late in his presidency he realized that the union could not stand with slavery.

6) The south initiated the war, the north did not start the War, Lincoln did not start the war.

The flaw in Ron Paul's reasoning is that Lincoln started the civil war and the reason he did that was to free the slaves. There are quite a few corespondent letters and speeches where he says just the opposite; he did not want to free the slaves. He did not see blacks as equals. He was placed in an extraordinary circumstance and he envisioned the only way to save the nation was to end slavery, but he did not want to do that when the war started.

If all the slaves where bought to make them free, assuming that it would be possible, the supreme court at that time would not allow it, there would be no new access for new slaves. In the early 1800's (I don't recall the date, you can look it up) a treaty was signed forbidding the importation of slaves.

The Civil War was always about slavery. Sure there was major political turmoil leading up to the conflict but all of it stemmed from conflicting views of the "peculiar institution." Read Bruce Levin's Half Slave Half Free. It is a short but well reasoned explanation of Slavery's role in US politics.

The south succeed over the issue of slavery, slavery was an issue since the foundation of the union. When Lincoln was elected president, the issue boiled over and some southern stated left the union. Lincoln was trusted into the situation. In the south slavery was the issue, for the north reuniting the union was the issue. There were many ideas at the time. Some believed slavery should be outlawed, some thought we should just let the south succeed. Slavery led to the war, but that was not why it was fought. Lincoln was not an advocate for the slaves, but he was placed into a situation where the logical action was to outlaw slavery.

(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

The South didn't secede because of Lincoln's platform on slavery. They seceded because of his position on the trade tariff. The newly elected Republican Party was made up of northern businessmen who wanted high tariffs to force the south to by goods from them instead of their oversea competitors. Remember South Carolina, the first state to secede, almost seceded 30 years earlier under Andrew Jackson over the same issue. The reason Fort Sumpter was attacked was because it was a fort that enforced the trade tariff's.

Slavery was about as much of a reason for the start of the "Civil War" as "spreading democracy in the Middle East" was a factor in starting the Iraq War. It became that "nobel cause" at the end of the war.

4) Slavery has led to the destruction of every civilization that didn't have a government strong or wise enough to abolish it.

Nonsense. Slavery didn't destroy the classical Greek states, or Imperial Rome, or the ancient Near-Eastern civilisations. It's one thing to say that states with legalised slavery haven't survived, but to extrapolate that legalised slavery was the cause of their fall would be like claiming that because no modern population speaks Akkadian, the Akkadian language was the reason for the end of Mesopotamian civilisation.

Not to be a dick or anything, but slavery can't end through the free market. The free market doesn't provide protection to people; it's a market of goods. The reason the constitution exists is to guarantee freedoms. Those freedoms weren't granted to slaves, and that's why slavery existed in America.

Ron Paul's solution is far from a free market solution. He's recommending that congress spend money on something. That's weird for him. Your third point was factually correct, but doesn't really reflect the attitude that Ron Paul is portraying.

The only times Slavery as an institution was ended was through the efforts of a central government.

Perhaps because slavery is a government institution to begin with? Governments hunted down and demanded the return of runaway slaves. Governments refused to protect the rights of slaves. How could slavery exist as it did in the American South without government enforcing it?

1-I don't think Ron Paul is claiming that it was solely the responsibility of Lincoln to propose a buy back plan. He's just pointing out a fact. The war was extremely destructive and pointless if you look at it in retrospect. 1% of the cost of the war frees all slaves and compensates southerners. A better way should have been considered.

2-Southerners fired the first shot after Lincoln, against the advice of his cabinet because they warned him he would provoke war, garrisoned Sumpter after the South demanded that they get out of their country. They didn't want to attack, but demanded that the north leave. When they wouldn't they decided that they would run out of supplies eventually. Lincoln garrisoned them, signaling that they would be staying forever. This was provocative, as Lincoln's cabinet understood.

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

As long as the tax revenues continue to pour in Lincoln will not invade. Lincoln wasn't getting his tax money, so he provoked war.

|The Free Market has NEVER brought an end to slavery throughout all of history. The only times Slavery as an institution was ended was through the efforts of a central government.

And by NEVER, you mean pretty much most countries?

Most countries don't have slavery because either:

People decide on their own not to enslave people because most people aren't douchebags (no one was forcing the north to not have slaves)

It doesn't make money sense. Why enslave someone when you can just get contract labor and treat them like shit? Slavery still exists today in the US, just look at the prison system, labor contracts, and most factory cities. Take a look at sweatshops and tell me that slavery has been abolished :(

Unfortunately, a big government entity will never be able to force freedom on people unless they allow people to be free.

How about the north? And to be clear here, we're talking about the federal government vs personal choice, not "free markets" vs whatever else. For people in the north, they simply stopped having slaves. It wasn't cool to have slaves, and eventually their states took care of it and outlawed it.

In the south, they were able to still use slaves because the cotton gin give it a little more time for it to make financial sense. With slaves, you MUST provide EVERY slave with enough food and shelter to live. Its not efficient, and is not scalable. Not to mention taxing (morally) on the slave owner/drivers. Before the cotton gin, slavery was already on its way out in the south. Given more time and tech, it would eventually go.

And slavery certainly still exists today even though it is illegal. And very much so in the US.

If you ban slavery then reimburse the owners of the slaves to free them then there is no demand for new slaves or bounty hunters to track them down. Then you still have money left over for the 40 acres and the mule. Though arguably that would have been an economic and social disaster to have spread out all of the former slaves across the Nebraska and Kansas territories.

The other side of this was that around that time the railroad was being finished, and there was a large Chinese immigrant population who worked their asses off for almost nothing. As a plantation owner, which would you rather have:

1) A slave which costs about $100,000 (in today's dollars) that you have to feed, clothe, keep healthy, keep contained, and motivated to do work.

or

2) A Chinese worker who comes pre-motivated for $2/day and goes home every night to feed and clothe themselves, and when there isn't work to do they leave and then come back when there is work to be done?

I think he is missing a major point. I am prepared for downvotes because the truth hurts. The Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery. Although it was a great occurrence because of the Civil War, it really didn't have much weight in the decision process of going to war. Slaves were owned by rich plantation owners, and the majority of people who fought for the South were poor farmers. The main reason the Civil War was fought was because of State's rights. The South feared a strong centralized Federal Government. The North wanted less State rights and more centralized government. It is thought that slavery would've been phased out naturally due to economic reasons than for legal reasons. Slaves were expensive; you had to feed, cloth, and house people year round. At this time seasonal workers were becoming more common. By the time of the Civil War, slaves were a status symbol for the rich. I am TOTALLY FOR the abolishment of slavery. I think slavery in any form is disgusting and has no place in any civilization, but we need to get our facts straight here.

Yet for some reason, the particular state right involved was always slavery, and then it was Jim Crow laws, and then it was integrated schools, and today its gay rights. What the South fears is a strong federal government forcing them to grow the fuck up.

Exactly, people don't fight for nebulous rights, they fight for specific ones. And you dind't have to be a slave owner to support the slave economy or consider it to be your divine right should you come into money. IT was state's rights. Statee's rights to allow slavery.

Yeah we do need our facts straight. the "states rights" issue is b.s. because the right they were arguing over was to HAVE SLAVES.

Slaves were owned by rich plantation owners, and the majority of people who fought for the South were poor farmers.

So? It doesn't matter if slaves were owned by rich plantation owners and mostly poor farmers fought. Look at all wars (especially this current one) how many of the guys fighting in the middle east right now own the huge multinational corps or oil conglomerates that are receiving 99% of the profits from these wars? I'd say zero. The poor ALWAYS fight the wars for the wealthy. And in the agrian south slavery was a way of life, one didn't have to own slaves to benefit from the system. The wealthy employed the white overseers, the patrollers and guards and other non wealthy whites to run the large plantations and oppress the slaves. Also there was a large profitably economy that ran the slave markets etc... The entire economy of the south was agrarian and was fueled by slave labor. In fact many large north east banking firms used slaves to collateralize debt and investments in much the same way the current real estate bubble and subsequent crash exposed the CDO of firms like AIG and Goldman Sachs

Slaves were expensive; you had to feed, cloth, and house people year round.

Not nearly as expensive as machinery or hiring workers, why do you think that even now large commercial farms still use human manual labor to pick fruit and vegggies. Look, this "taking care of slaves was hard and expensive" is a myth. Slaves were given a single pair of shoes and two outfits a year on average. They lived in the slave quarters which were a collection of crumbling shanties. They worked 6 days a week from sunup to sundown and they had to grow their own food of small patches of dirt around the slave quarters. People weren't going to give up slaves because there is something fucked in humans. Some of us love the ability to lord over others and hold the power of life and death over them.

Now if the previous word weren't enough to show that in fact slavery was the main issue at hand I think you should take a look through these articles of secession of Mississippi

FTA

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.

So fuck Ron Paul, not that I think Lincoln was the greatest pres, but he would be a far cry better than a guy who in the 21st century believes the earth is 6000 years old. And despite a couple of millennium of human history believes the "free market" and people and companies in general will actually act in the best interest of society as a whole without being forced to.

Look, this "taking care of slaves was hard and expensive" is a myth. Slaves were given a single pair of shoes and two outfits a year on average. They lived in the slave quarters which were a collection of crumbling shanties. They worked 6 days a week from sunup to sundown and they had to grow their own food of small patches of dirt around the slave quarters

I guess, but there was one major difference. The poor whites were free and were citizens protected by the law and could vote. They didn't belong to someone and couldn't be murdered or raped or sold ( or have their children sold) on a moment's whim. Another small thing, if they learned how to read or looked at another white person they wouldn't be hung or bull whipped to death.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost anything to not murder or rape someone, so these things don't have much to do with the cost of free vs. slave labor. At best, they just affect turnover. But it's doubtful whether this outweighs the motivational advantage of free labor.

Touched a nerve, did I? Well, a couple things about your comments, though. The right to own slaves was one of many issues at hand for the South. It wasn't the only one, and it wasn't their major issue, either. There were many things that States feared from a strong Federal government. Just because it was ONE of the reasons does not make it the sole reason.
Slaves were very expensive. You are talking about a lot of expenses that seasonal workers didn't take up. Having to feed and house someone year long is much more expensive than paying cheap labor to work for a few months. Even though the amount of money paid to keep the slaves healthy was minimal, you answered yourself by saying that they also had to pay for guards, overseers and patrols. I have never heard of a strawberry farm being patrolled by guards. THOSE expenses on top of the money paid for the slaves and year-long residence add up to be quite expensive. Your point about the poor farmers fighting the war because that's what the poor do is not quite accurate. Yes, the poor have been known throughout history to fight the wars of the wealthy, but this was a war that split families, had brothers fighting brothers. They CHOSE to fight in this war, and they fought because they truly believed in what they were fighting for. This isn't about Iraq and the American poor fighting in our services. This was a war of what they believed.
Again, although slavery was an issue at hand during the Civil War, it was only ONE OF MANY issues that the South had against the North, and why they wanted to leave the Union.

Not particularly. I had to study the issue in an advanced econ class and I ended up doing a lot of research. Also I like history and revsionist apologist explanations are irritating.

Just because it was ONE of the reasons does not make it the sole reason.

I never said it was the sole issue

Slaves were very expensive. You are talking about a lot of expenses that seasonal workers didn't take up. Having to feed and house someone year long is much more expensive than paying cheap labor to work for a few months. Even though the amount of money paid to keep the slaves healthy was minimal, you answered yourself by saying that they also had to pay for guards, overseers and patrols.

Not nearly as expensive as paying for workers. Do you know anything about business? Let me break a couple of things down for you. Imagine if the company you worked for paid NO WAGES or salaries and only gave everyone who worked there a sandwich a day, two pairs of pants and shirts and a pair of shoes a year and provided a 200sq foot living space. What do you think their end of year earnings statement would look like? For one the slave owners outlay in relation to his return was minimal. The slave grew their own meager grain, greens and corn on small plots of land. They worked 6 days a week 10-14 hours a day for NO WAGES, the profit margin was unimaginable. I don't think you have an inking of the wealth that was amassed. Also the money paid for guards and such was a pittance. What is this year long residence charge you keep mentioning. The slave quarters were situated on land that wasn't suitable to be farmed and cost the owner nothing, it was a collection of crappy shacks. Grown slaves were expensive to purchase, therefore a guy that owned a lot of men and women could ( and did all the time) sell the babies. And of course rape the women to make lighter skinned "house slaves" Often these mixed kids would be the personal servants of their demi-brothers and sisters, pretty sick really. But for the most part the slave took care of themselves dude. They weren't horses or dogs who require someone to care for a feed them, they grew their own food, sewed their clothes and took care of their own medical needs. Hell often times they grew herbs and medicines and treated the owner's family and they certainly raised and nursed and breastfed the owners babies The money they brought in from cotton and other food crops and textiles was nearly pure profit.

They CHOSE to fight in this war, and they fought because they truly believed in what they were fighting for

yeah they fought because they believed that blacks should be slaves to the "white race" See here's the thing. Even if you were a piss poor inbred toothless dirt farmer, by god at least you were a white man and you were superior to the black slaves. They fought to keep this illusion intact and to preserve the hierarchical class structure in place. this class structure:a rich plantation-owning class that looked after society, ensuring a hierarchical order that protected the place in society of uneducated white people and of strong men renowned for their soldiering and hunting skills in particular, and kept lower forms of life, like Africans, under control. Everyone understood that the only "social security" was having lots of children who would look after you when you could no longer work the farm, and religion was all about getting people to have those children and, more generally, to accept the social conditions imposed on them.

Wow, people are getting their fucking panties in a bunch here. I think if you read what I am saying and you read what you are saying they are pretty similar in the fact that slavery as an institution had very little to do with the Civil War. It was State's rights that were at issue that started the war. Although those rights that the sourthern States wanted had to do with slavery means very little when it comes to the fact that the war was about the sourthern States not wanting to be told what to do by a centralized Federal government. Again, although one of the rights the States wanted was slavery, the fundamental problem the States had was a strong Federal government enacting laws that would stop States from choosing what they wanted within their territory. Basically, the South was worried about losing it's sovereignty. Wow, you need to calm the fuck down.

No, I'm observing that a close attention to the reaction that one's statements provokes - which is, let us recall, how you opened that post - is a hallmark of the troll. People who are interested in serious discussion don't ever congratulate themselves on touching a nerve.

Well maybe you should read the first sentence of the post I was replying too. Then maybe you would realize that I actually did touch a nerve with the guy and he got a little pissy because of it. And I wasn't "congratulating" myself on touching a nerve. Wow, man, you have amazed me today. Thanks.

Here's how you can tell when someone making an argument about the causes of the Civil War doesn't know what they're talking about: They talk about slavery as though the only question surrounding it was the moral issue of abolition. Their argument doesn't address any of the legislative conflicts of the 40 years that preceded the war, like the Missouri Compromise or the Compromise of 1850. It doesn't examine why there were four candidates in the 1860 presidential election instead of two. It doesn't talk about what Northerners called "the slave power," let alone examine why Northerners used that term. As this argument does, it constructs careful rationalizations for why "poor farmers" in the South went to war despite not owning slaves, and does not examine in any way why poor farmers in the North did.

The South went to war because after the election of 1860 they could see the writing on the wall. The free states were going to permanently outnumber the slave states. The slave states' ability to deadlock the Senate was going to go away, and with it would go their ability to prevent federal laws that undercut the viability of the central institution of their economy from being enacted. The Fugitive Slave Act would be repealed. (The Fugitive Slave Act really makes mincemeat of the states' rights argument - the South was so committed to states' rights that in 1850 they pushed through legislation that fined federal marshals who failed to violate the personal-liberty laws enacted in the northern states.)

The North went to war to contain the slave power. (If you don't understand what that sentence means, you really have no business talking about the causes of the Civil War.) You can argue all day about whether "containing the slave power" necessarily meant destroying slavery. There's no doubt that the South thought that's what it meant.

Why is it so fucking hard for you all to read what the hell I was saying. Look, I am well aware that one of the issues that caused the Civil War was slavery. But read what I am saying! Please, please, please stop reading what you WANT my words to say. The South was afraid of losing it's sovereignty, they didn't want to be told by a big centralized Federal government to do ANYTHING they didn't want to do. Yes, slavery was on the table. Yes, slavery was an issue of that time. But not once did I say in anything I have wrote that I didn't agree with that. I am saying that it is ONE OF THE MANY reasons why the South wanted to leave the Union. The South wanted slaves, the North did not. The South didn't want to be told what to do and knew that the North would eventually outlaw slavery in the South. I get that, I know that, I studied that. I am saying that the South didn't want to lose their rights and therefore started the Civil War. They were worried about A LOT of shit the North would impose on them, and slavery was ONE issue. It's like talking to a fucking wall with you all sometimes.

Why is it so fucking hard for you all to read what the hell I was saying.

A good rule of thumb: When you walk down the street and someone kicks you, he has a problem. When you walk down the street and everyone kicks you, you have a problem.

Please, please, please stop reading what you WANT my words to say.

I said that the Civil War was fought to keep slavery from being abolished. You're saying that "The South didn't want to be told what to do and knew that the North would eventually outlaw slavery in the South." What part of my post, then, are you disagreeing with?

That's my whole point here, man. You came on and started trashing what I was saying when the whole fucking time you have been saying almost exactly what I was saying. You agreed with my points, although said in a different way. It's like you are just playing Devil's Advocate, which is really really annoying. I believe I wrote my post, and then you replied to mine saying I was wrong although what you said is almost exactly what I have been saying! Do you realize how annoying that is?

Wow, are you really that dense? I obviously can't talk reason to you, and you obviously want me to skip out of work today and go to a library and write a research paper for you with a bibliography included. But that isn't going to happen. I am bored talking the same points to you, so let's just stop this back and forth, shall we?

Well, no, I'd assume that since you took it upon yourself to educate the rest of us with "the truth" on this subject, you'd have command of basic information about the sectional conflict. (Do you know what the sectional conflict is?) You shouldn't have to go to the library to support the argument that you're making; you should know what evidence exists to support it.

Like, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd be able to make a counterargument. For instance, you'd be able to at least try to reconcile what you claim to be the South's commitment to states' rights with their advocacy (to put it mildly) of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Well, guess I know what you've been doing for the last couple hours. Glad to see you are starting to read up on the subject. One of the things that really pisses me off about people like you is that you demand bibliographies for comments made on REDDIT. Come on, man, this is fucking Reddit, not the New England Journal of Medicine. So let me get something clear with you really quick. I have absolutely no desire to debate this topic with you anymore, I am bored of you and think you are a douche. I am glad you went onto Wikipedia and looked up some information, it's good to see you using that brain of yours. But I can honestly say I don't really give a shit what you have said. You see, for all intents and purposes, I could say that you are a troll, a big fucking troll. You demand so much detail from a site like Reddit that it is unbelievable and pretty fucking sad. Then you come back, 2 hours after your last comment with all kinds of shit that you have "known all along." Hahahahaha, tool. You see, from your last comment, you said that "the Civil War was about slavery or it was fought to keep slavery being abolished." Your ignorance is just shining through, buddy. I mean, really really shining through. Again, I am done debating this topic with you. Please, just go away.

The only things that I looked up on Wikipedia were the date that the slave trade was abolished (1 January 1808, not a piece of information that I ended up using) and to double-check that the Fugitive Slave Act was indeed part of the Compromise of 1850. Everything else is stuff that I remember from reading Eric Foner, James McPherson, and Kenneth Stampp, and from having had this argument about a million times over the last 30 years.

You should maybe get out of the habit of proclaiming yourself to be bearing the truth (which is how you introduced yourself to this discussion, you may recall) about subjects that you have very shallow knowledge of.

If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be blustering about being asked to support your arguments. You'd be supporting them.

I think most people know that, by now. It's good that you (and others) came to remind Ron Paul of that, because he clearly is missing the point. But I wonder if anyone actually downvoted you because they still believe the Civil War was a righteous struggle against slavery.

The way I am taking his point is that he is saying we didn't need to fight the war because we could've bought all the slaves. Unfortunately the war would've happened if there were slaves in the South or if we bought them all.

Not necessarily. The war wasn't fought to free slaves, but the South did secede to preserve slavery. Why? Economic reasons. The North fought to retain the full union. So had the north offered to offset the economic costs associated with freeing slaves there would have been less pressure to secede and hence war would have been less likely.

Faced with this pressure, Lincoln put forward his own ideas. He first proposed gradual, voluntary emancipation coupled with monetary compensation for slaveholders and colonization of freed blacks--the traditional approach of politicians critical of slavery but unwilling to challenge the property right of slaveholders. Lincoln's plan would make slaveowners partners in abolition. He suggested it to the four slave states that remained in the Union--Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri--but found no takers.

Yes. If the original thirteen colonies had a right to independence from England, then they had the right to secede from the Union. Especially if West Virginia had a right to secede from the rest of the state.

Secession could have been handled peacefully. That doesn't mean the North had to continue free trade with the South. Slavery issue could have been effectively handled by diplomatic and economic pressure. It wouldn't have actually been that hard to put that kind of economic pressure on; most planters were deeply in debt to Northern or British lenders.

The cost of slave ownership should have been very cheap in the South, since the cornerstones of subsistence level living (food, clothing) were being produced using the cheapest form of labor available: slave labor.

It was over economic freedoms, of which slavery was a major player. It wasn't fought to free the slaves, but slavery played a major role in why it needed to be fought. One of the biggest fears used to rouse the public in the south was the fear that the union was going to deprive them of their slaves through economic sanctions and generic cultural threats. And sure enough, both came along, though had the south not gone into rebellion they probably would have come on much more favorable terms.

This is one of those cases where learning a little totally changes your perspective, but learning a lot makes you realize your original assumptions aren't that far from the truth either.

That's not true. As I have pointed out time and time again, the Civil War was over State's fearing they were losing their sovereignty. To say that the South wouldn't have rebelled even if there were no slaves is a pretty big assumption. Slavery was a part of it, but there were many many other issues at hand that caused the Civil War.

To say that the South wouldn't have rebelled even if there were no slaves is a pretty big assumption.

What? The South wouldn't have existed as a political entity if there were no slaves. Without slavery, Louisiana has no more political or social common cause with North Carolina than it does with Ohio. Without slavery, the southern states would not have joined in common to refuse to sign the Constitution until the three-fifths clause was established. Without slavery, Georgia has no more of a reason to worry about the federal government's threat to its sovereignty than New Hampshire does.

Is there any evidence you can adduce in support of your assertions? Like, "there were many many other issues at hand that caused the Civil War." Can you identify any of these non-slavery-related issues, and show any evidence that they motivated men to take up arms against the Union?

If you are asking me to take time off of work and find my old history text books from college or go to the library, or search through the internet for you for something so trivial as your request, then you are sadly mistaken. It's not my fault if your teacher's decided to leave out those other issues, but I am sure if you did a little diggin you could find it for yourself! And trust me, if you actually look, you WILL find it!

Because it sounds nice. It really is amazing that people will desperately try to distort the truth of that war. Unfortunately, as much as people want the Civil War to have been fought over slavery, it just isn't the case. And by refusing to accept it they are purposely trying to distort historical facts, which I have no patience for. Some people just don't know, because their teachers will refuse the truth as well.

But that's not what it says above.
It says paying instead of having the war, which was fought over (amongst other things) the right to keep forced labour.
It's a nonsequitur to asume that buying the slaves of their owners would have allowed for abolition without the south protesting.

The civil war is just history to northerners, but southern men act like the civil war happened yesterday, and they're still pissed.

I was sent on temp assignment in the South once. The guy I was working with did something stupid. As coworkers sometimes do, I teased him a bit. I said "no wonder you boys lost the war." Well, I don't think I ever got so much hate for something I said.

Those here who seem to think that a bloody civil war was simply the best option to resolve the slave issue really, really disturb me. You guys are unimaginative fools, and this kind of knee-jerk response is what gets us into stupid situations like "liberating" Iraq.

Fuck states' rights. We need to do away with that layer of superfluous government that pretends to speak for its citizens but knows no bounds of corruption. If we let the states have their way South Carolina would be an even worse racist, misogynistic, homophobic shithole than it already is.

As a North Carolina born-and-bred Southerner, I think the Civil War did not go far enough.

I am. As much as people blast their federal representative, at least they come under far greater scrutiny. Realistically, your local elected officials are often far more incompetent or corrupt. Not always, and some states obviously have their acts together far better than others, but as a whole the federal government gets all of the attention.

Lincoln tried that, the south rejected it. If you want to argue about whether states have the right to secede that is another argument entirerly, but the "buy them and free them" strategy WAS proposed by Lincoln. The South Rejected it outright (even the loyal slave-owning border states)

Typical capitalist response. Throw money at a problem to achieve very short term solutions. The plantation owners would have gone out and bought more slaves. They needed the slaves for their business model to succeed. The slaves were not the problem, the problem was slavery.

Importation of slaves was already illegal, and had been for decades before the civil war. The census counted slaves, so the government already knew where the slaves were. I don't think the South would have gone to war over those few slaves that had been born since the last census.

This was largely due to mans ability to kill overwhelmed his ability to save. Neither side though the war would last long & both thought as did the Japanese, that the other side would soon sue for peace.

In the 1850's if a Tax on cotton was paid to free the slaves then war may have been avoided.

Edit:

I also think the carpet baggers deeds contributed to Southern animosity towards Blacks.

The main cause of the Civil War was not slavery. It was not even state's rights.

It was economic and political disparity. The industrialized north had become wealthy, and had little need for slave labor. This made it a lot easier for them to find their morals with regard to slavery.

The south was falling behind, while the north was exerting its political muscle to make it difficult for the south to send its agricultural products abroad. Ending slavery would (and did) cripple their increasingly backwards economy. State's rights was their justification. If a federalist argument would have served them better, they would have used it.

Buy off their slaves would not have changed the south's economic reliance on that institution. Using a half baked mathematical argument to suggesting the war could have been averted is remarkably ignorant.

This made it a lot easier for them to find their morals with regard to slavery.

Well, it depends which morals you're talking about. If you're thinking about the morality of keeping black people in chains, that remained a fringe concern through 1860. The Republican party didn't think that slaveholding was wrong, they thought that plantation owners using masses of black slaves to unfairly compete with free white American yeoman farmers was wrong.

Also, casting the sectional conflict in terms of economic disparities between North and South makes sense, but saying that the main cause of the Civil War was not slavery does not. The South wouldn't exist as a sociopolitical bloc without slavery. Sure, there were economic disparities between North and South. There were economic disparities between Virginia and Florida, too. But those disparities were not ever going to drive Virginia into a shooting war with Florida.

This made it a lot easier for them to find their morals with regard to slavery.

Well, it depends which morals you're talking about. If you're thinking about the morality of keeping black people in chains, that remained a fringe concern through 1860.

That is exactly what I meant. The "realization" slavery was wrong was self interest wrapped in a veneer of morality.

As for the economic disparities, they were closely associated with reliance on labor intensive cash agriculture. Virginia and Florida were aligned in this regard.

I think we can agree the war was not about the morality of slavery. My point is slavery just happened to be the issue that highlighted the differences to start the war...it could have easily been something that impacted the south disproportionately...say, a cotton tax or an export ban.

No, the odds that the entire South would have been willing to secede from the Union and fight a war over a mere cotton tax are nonexistent. Preston Brooks didn't beat Charles Sumner half to death on the floor of Congress because of money, any more than teabaggers compare Obama to Hitler because they don't want their taxes to go up.

The social order of the South revolved around four million black slaves living in the midst of around seven million white citizens. There wasn't a foreseeable path out of that situation that was tolerable to them.

To buy the slaves and than free them. No, this would have made the racial inferiority complexes (everybody) that are still rampant in this country even worse. Black folks would still have a collective "debt" looming over their heads. As exaggerated as it is, there is still a great pride and some thing very gratifying in the fact that a truly evil institution was shut down pretty violently. It sucks when people have to die for causes, but this was an evil that couldn't just be bought off. But if I got the wrong idea and Ron Paul has it together, then going by his logic, couldn't we have just given some of our biggest enemies land or money or the respect they craved in order to avoid a lot of the conflicts this country has gotten into.

PS: I disagree with Ron Paul on a bunch of issues, I guess, based on this article. I was just addressing the headline. There is a little paragraph in which he answers a completely asinine question. What morons are sitting around discussing who the greatest president was. That's silly fantasy football shit.

Good point. Those countries did a fair piece for themselves. I don't really think buying off a slave trader is the best approach to diplomacy and securing human rights, though. If these were children being sold into a sex ring than we could just pay off the ransoms, right? Return them to their homes and case solved. :)
Hyperbole, aside, I think buying off slavers sends the wrong message. it's like buying off Nixon or something. Smarmy and yech.

And up until about 2 years ago about racism here in America, a lot of folks felt race wasn't that big of an issue here. It was, obviously, but it wasn't anything that got talked about. Same in other countries that I've visited that have a pretty diverse ethnic background. It isn't until something that doesn't fit the racial status quo occurs that anything becomes blatant. Like a black president in society that isn't use to people from this group being in charge, or a set of liberal parents having to deal with their child's other race friends (sometimes goes good, sometimes bad).

The point being, I guess, even though these countries did it "bloodlessly", they just like us, failed to address the issue of how to get folks to get along in a society equally. And from everything I hear there is still plenty for folks to address in every culturally heterogeneous society out there.

Of course it was a compromise, and not a nice one by today's standards. But Paul's point that war wasn't the only possible option is well supported, as is his point that the cost in money alone could have been lower than the war.

Ok, Ok, Northern aggression or not, war is crappy. We can agree on that. Screw paying slavers, though. It's an old and extremely lame concept.
But this stuff aside, as long as he feels that way about all wars, especially "Holy" ones, then I guess he can stay.

I don't know if that would have worked as well here. Because along with that, it would have required the federal government to abolish slavery, something the South still may have objected to on states rights grounds. As much as people like to claim the civil war was only about one or the other, in the end it was about both slavery and states rights issues, the latter still being a problem with a federal law abolishing slavery.

However, I'll note it may not have been as contentious, as paying for the slaves would have been an economic boost, compared to the tariffs that the south was objecting to.

Awesome. Then of course with no slaves and all that demand for more, the slave traders would emprison more Africans and transport them over on those awesome cruise ships for even more sales. We might even still have a slave trade today!

That's more interesting. Even so the costs to gov't of such an arrangement (vast numbers of slaves keep in mind) vs the costs they could have projected for a civil war (compare/contrast US cost estimates re: Iraq War) might still easily have tipped the scales in favor of war - keeping in mind projected costs for war.

It wouldn't have simply been "buy up all the slaves." There would have been costs for an extensive bureaucracy, for resettlement of slave populations, and for helping the South develop a new means for getting the same labor at a price that wouldn't bust their business.

Also keep in mind that a great portion of the US GDP from agriculture was entirely reliant upon cheap slave labor. A change such as Paul suggests would have required the development of an entirely new economy -- something that would daunt any government in the mid-1800's, let alone the still-young American government.

And even if everything you outline were accounted for, there is still the matter of the north having the foresight and politicall will to see this through, and perhaps most importantly, the trust and goodwill required for the south to believe them.

Think of the scam you could run if you were living in the north and had some black friends.
1. Obtain covered wagon
2. Pile in 12 of your black friends, dressed in tattered clothes
3. Make the trip to the nearest slave exchange depot
4. Profit!!!!

Yes, because the North would have welcomed millions of slaves with open arms. And I'm sure the Union states would have loved spending millions (in 1860's money) to buy those slaves, relocate them, clothe/feed/educate them. Meanwhile, the south is suddenly flush with more hard currency than ever. Solid plan there.

So much is wrong with that statement.First it cheapens the sacrifice of great patriots who died in the name of freedom. Second it rewards slavery thereby doing nothing to stop it. Third it falsely asserts that money can solve everything.

Sometimes you have to cut out the fucking cancer. Slavery is cancerous. Nazis are cancerous. Ron Paul is cancerous.

My Great Great Grandfather was from NY, fought for the Union. He wrote his memoirs where he spoke about what a great man John Brown was. Also look into Bleeding Kansas and Jayhawkers, coincidentally the other side of my family were abolitionists in Kansas at the same time John Brown was there.

There's little evidence that more than a very few gave a damn about slavery.

That may not have been the motivation for all but it was for some, additionally, that was the result. Tell the freed slaves that 'few gave a damn about slavery'. They'd say who the fuck cares, I'm free, people did die for my freedom, fuck you.